Employee Voice
Employee voice enables workers to effectively communicate their views to management and be actively involved in decision making. Voice arrangements allow employees to express their ideas, raise concerns and help solve problems by influencing workplace decisions and choices. (Gollan, 2006:349; Pymen et al, 2006:543).
The various forms of voice available today in the current industrial relations system include both direct and indirect mechanisms. Indirect mechanisms include unions, non union representative bodies, the media, lawyers and consultative committees (Bryson et al, 2006:445). On the other hand, direct voice can be described as ‘the presence of any two-way communications practices’ (Bryson et al, 2006:445), and includes staff and team meetings, group discussions, training, attitude surveys, quality circles and suggestion schemes (CCH, nd; Pymen at al, 2006:549). Today, direct forms of voice are generally favoured amongst employers, as it is claimed that they allow management to better respond to employee interests and concerns, because there is no intermediary, so eliciting more cooperation and commitment from employees (Bryson et al, 2006:443). It has also been argued that ‘union-only voice reflects a narrow conceptualisation of the alternative regimes available to employees to advance their rights and interests at work’ (Pymen et al, 2006:544).
In saying this, until recently, union voice was the most prominent voice mechanism (Bryson et al, 2006:440). Many people have scrutinised the use of direct forms of voice, believing they have little or no collective power and access to independent sources of advice and assistance, and therefore more susceptible to managerial influence and control (Pymen et al, 2006:544).
Overall, employees believe organisational objectives are most successfully achieved through the combination of indirect and direct
The various forms of voice available today in the current industrial relations system include both direct and indirect mechanisms. Indirect mechanisms include unions, non union representative bodies, the media, lawyers and consultative committees (Bryson et al, 2006:445). On the other hand, direct voice can be described as ‘the presence of any two-way communications practices’ (Bryson et al, 2006:445), and includes staff and team meetings, group discussions, training, attitude surveys, quality circles and suggestion schemes (CCH, nd; Pymen at al, 2006:549). Today, direct forms of voice are generally favoured amongst employers, as it is claimed that they allow management to better respond to employee interests and concerns, because there is no intermediary, so eliciting more cooperation and commitment from employees (Bryson et al, 2006:443). It has also been argued that ‘union-only voice reflects a narrow conceptualisation of the alternative regimes available to employees to advance their rights and interests at work’ (Pymen et al, 2006:544).
In saying this, until recently, union voice was the most prominent voice mechanism (Bryson et al, 2006:440). Many people have scrutinised the use of direct forms of voice, believing they have little or no collective power and access to independent sources of advice and assistance, and therefore more susceptible to managerial influence and control (Pymen et al, 2006:544).
Overall, employees believe organisational objectives are most successfully achieved through the combination of indirect and direct
References: Anonymous (2007). Strong Employee Voice Linked To Better Nursing Home Care, Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 33(6), p. 5 Benson J. (2000). British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(3), pp. (453-457) Bryson A., Charlwood A Cannel M. (2007). Employee Voice, < <http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/comsonslt/empvoice.htm>,sCIPD,sLondon, accessed 2 September 2007 CCH (nd) Gollan P. (2006). A Process Of Transition - Employer Strategies And Outcomes Of Employee Voice At Eurotunnel, Socio-Economic Review, pp.337-351 Hammer S Luthans F. & Stajkovic A. (1999). Reinforce for performance: The need to go beyond pay and even rewards, The Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), p. 49 Pyman A., Cooper B., Teicher J Woodruffe C. (2006). The crucial importance of employee engagement, Human Resource Management International Digest, 14(1), pp.3-5